Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), and coauthor for yielding me this time; and I urge a bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know that it is a hotly debated topic as to whether there should be logging in this forest, and irrespective of how someone feels about this question, I think they should vote in favor of this amendment. If they feel, as I do, that logging is inappropriate in Tongass, then this amendment stops building the roads that will let people exploit that logging and preserves this priceless natural asset. But I know that there are many who believe that logging is appropriate in the Tongass forest; and, Mr. Chairman, I want to say even if they think it is appropriate, they should vote for this amendment, and they should vote for this amendment on several important fiscal grounds. The first fiscal ground is this is one of the worst investments the United States taxpayers have ever been asked to make. In fiscal year 2002, which is the last year for which there is evidence here, the American taxpayers put up $36 million to build these roads, and our revenue, our return on our investment, was slightly over $1 million. For every $36 we put up, we got $1 back. The second point that I would make, you say, well, look, we still need to get this logging done. The fact of the matter is there are miles and miles of roads already built in the Tongass National Forest that do give access to logging. So if we want to see the forest logged, the roads are already there that would permit the forest to be logged. We do not need to build new ones. And if we think that we should be logging in the Tongass National Forest and that roads that will give access to the logging are not accessible, there is a reason. That is because there is a $900 million backlog in road maintenance for roads that are already there to get access to the logging. So colleagues, I want you to think about this. If you believe, as I do not, that logging the resources, exploiting the resources of this natural forest is the right thing to do and you need road access to get there, you are throwing good money after bad. If we truly believe that the right thing to do is to get access to these forests, we will deal with the $900 million backlog to the existing roads. We would not put more money into building new roads. This amendment is favored by hunters and sportsmen who want to preserve the pristine nature of this place where they can pursue their sport. It is favored by taxpayers and budget groups across the country who well understand that at a time when our country is borrowing $30 for every $100 that we spend, offering corporate welfare to the lumber industries is the wrong way to go; and it is favored by those who just favor common sense, who understand that when the taxpayers are asked to put up a $36 investment, they should not get a $1 return. That is the simple mathematics of this amendment. Now, for those who are moved by the environmental arguments, as I am, this is a foolish misuse of our public resources. This is America's rainforest. It is a very precious and special place, and for us to exploit those resources with these roads is just a horrible idea. But I will submit, in closing, before I yield back to my coauthor, that the issue here really is not whether we favor exploitation of these forests for logging or not. We can have that debate some other time. The issue here is whether we favor throwing good money after bad, whether we favor building more roads when the roads we already have need repair. It is whether we favor putting $36 into an investment that will get us $1 back in return. If you are an environmentalist, you should support this amendment, as the environmental groups do. If you are a taxpayer for common sense, you should support this amendment. If you are a sportsman or a hunter, you should support this amendment. Even if you favor the exploitation of these logging resources, you should favor this amendment because the most rational way to pursue the exploitation of those logging resources is to fix the roads that are already there, not put more money into the building and acquisition of new roads. I would urge my Republican and Democratic friends to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I thank my friend from Ohio for being the principal author.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, with this month being Autism Awareness Month, I ask that you join me in recognizing the efforts of Andrew D'Amico and his parents, Mr. Frank D'Amico and Mrs. Nancy D'Amico in supporting this cause. With autism occurring in 1 in every 250 births nationwide, more scientific research in regard to causes and treatments would prove to be beneficial. The D'Amicos participate in the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR), an organization that as its name suggests funds and promotes scientific research to determine both the biological origin and possible cure for this condition. In 1994, NAAR became the first association in the United States to uphold a mission dedicated to research concerning autism. More recently, on April 1st of last year, the D'Amicos along with other representatives of NAAR lobbied on NAAR's Hill Day for increases in the NIH budget specifically geared towards researching this condition. In addition to boosting financial resources for research, NAAR builds a supportive community of friends and family connected to autism. This group's major fundraiser, Walk F.A.R. for NAAR, takes care of both bases by raising funds and by connecting many individuals through one powerful goal of spreading awareness and deepening knowledge. NAAR hosts this special 4-mile long walk in numerous locations throughout the Nation. Since May 2000, 150,000 walkers have together raised over $15 million. The dedication and care of those involved in the walk survive any obstacle, as is evident in last year's Delaware Valley Walk. Rain drenched this site, but 2,000 supporters completed every bit of the 4 miles and collected $204,000. The commitment of NAAR's members simply shines. Walkers can take part in this event separately or within a team. Andrew and his parents formed Team Andrew, a team that at fifty walkers strong donated $10,000 alone last year at the previously mentioned walk. Andrew along with the rest of his team intends to continue their strong showing and partake in the 2004 Delaware Valley Walk on June 12th, exactly two months before his 18th birthday. Aside from his activities with NAAR, Andrew devotes himself to high achievement within his high school and surrounding communities. Currently a junior at West Deptford High School, he has earned upstanding academic marks and the esteem of the faculty. Such accomplishment secured for Andrew the Principal's Award for the second marking period of the current school year and an invitation to apply for membership to the West Deptford Chapter of the National Honor Society. Acceptance into this society revolves around scholarship, service, character, and leadership. Further solidifying his involvement within West Deptford High School, Andrew serves through the Key Club and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD). Rather than taking a back seat, Andrew actively and admirably becomes involved. Andrew combines his interest in service and ability to lead by volunteering at the Gloucester County Camp that focuses on Asperberger Syndrome. Those exhibiting symptoms of this condition show signs of deficient socialization and difficulty in coping with changes in routine. This 4-week program aims to comfortably increase social interaction amongst its participants. Andrew, a two-year veteran, decided to take another step up and reach out to those willing to put out a hand. The construction of this tight network offers a foundation for the individuals of the camp to gain support from. Mr. D'Amico described his son's incredible ripple effects when he commented, ``Andrew has made our family stronger and each of us a stronger person. We were all blessed on the day he was born.'' Andrew chooses not to view his state as a heavy weight or crutch. He instead aspires to not only take care of himself and his responsibilities but to also touch and invigorate those around him. For a myriad of reasons, Andrew D'Amico unquestionably deserves acknowledgment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise before you today to congratulate the members of the Deptford Township School District Naval Junior ROTC for their commitment to citizenship, leadership, and community. On June 8, 2004, the Deptford Naval Junior ROTC will hold a ceremony to honor these dedicated cadets, and several exemplary individuals will be receiving awards of distinction. I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in congratulating the following individuals who will be recognized at Tuesday's award ceremony: Johnathan Rivera and John Porteous will receive the Military Order of the World Wars Leadership Award, which is awarded to the individuals who best exemplify the spirit of ROTC leadership; Cadet Petty Officer Third Class Christine D'Ottaviano will receive the Military Order of the World Wars Award, which is awarded to the individual who has demonstrated outstanding accomplishment and service to the ROTC Unit; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Andrew Horvat will receive the Stephen Decatur Jr. Award, awarded to an outstanding junior cadet; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Sherri Baskerville and Adam Kucera will receive the Military Officers Association of America Award, which is awarded to the individuals who have demonstrated exceptional potential for military leadership; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Jacob Callahan will receive the National Sojourners Award, which is awarded to the most outstanding cadet with patriotism; Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Adam Kalb will receive the Order of Daedalians Award, which is awarded to the individual who has demonstrated scholastic and leadership excellence with a desire to pursue a military career; and Cadet Petty Officer Second Class Travis Hanson will receive the American Veterans (AMVETS) JROTC Award, which is awarded to an individual with a positive attitude, outstanding personal appearance, dependability, and sound judgment. The Junior ROTC program serves our great nation by training the future leadership of our armed forces and fostering the development of our youth into contributing and responsible members of society. All of the cadets of the Deptford Township School District Naval Junior ROTC are to be commended for their commitment and outstanding achievement.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Centennial Celebration of the Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey. Paulsboro has a long and colorful history, as well as a promising future of which its citizens should be quite proud. The town of Paulsboro lies next to the Delaware River across the border from--Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Though the Borough was officially established in 1904, the history of the region dates back many more years. Settlers first came to the Delaware River area in 1623 and, over time, Paulsboro developed into a small farming community. On March 2, 1904, Paulsboro joined with a nearby town by the name of Billingsport, and the two were together incorporated as the Borough of Paulsboro. William Penn once said that the land that Paulsboro now sits on would never become a great industrial center because it was an island with a swamp on one side and a creek on the other. However, just before World War I, Paulsboro was selected as the location for an oil refinery. The Paulsboro Plant, which began in 1917, was designed to manufacture lubricating oil, and began the transformation of Paulsboro from a residential town into an industrial town. While the plant, which still exists today as an ExxonMobil research laboratory, is actually located in neighboring Gibbstown, it is still referred to as the Paulsboro Plant, and many of its loyal employees are residents of Paulsboro. With a keen eye on the future, the Borough of Paulsboro is now considering a proposal for the creation of a deep-water port on the Delaware River. County officials predict that such a port could create 2,300 jobs, and generate $100 million each year in revenues and taxes, becoming a vital component of the community's future. From its humble beginnings at the turn of the century, Paulsboro is set once again to reinvigorate and diversify our regional economy and community. The residents of Paulsboro should be proud that their community has prospered for 100 years, an accomplishment in and of itself. The Paulsboro area has made significant cultural and economic contributions to our country throughout its history, and I am certain that there is a bright future ahead for the Borough and its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating the citizens of Paulsboro, New Jersey as they celebrate 100 years of pride and accomplishment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the bill. I suppose if you are one of the 8 million unemployed Americans listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, you wonder what this bill would mean to you. First, if you live in one of the many, many States that would not be part of this pilot program, it means nothing. Second, if you are in one of the States or counties that has the pilot program, you keep hearing about this $3,000, there is no $3,000. This bill was not funded in the President's budget. If money would be scraped together for it, it would come out of something else that helps unemployed people. It is up to $3,000. So someone listening to this, Mr. Speaker, should not assume that he or she is going to get a $3,000 voucher. But let us assume that you live in one of the pilot counties and the money is there to some extent. What does this mean? It means you are unemployed and you get a choice. You can either take all the services that the law presently provides like job training, like counseling, like transportation, like child care; or you can give up your right to receive those services for a year and take this check of up to $3,000 instead. Now, if you have looked at the price of sending children to child care, $3,000 does not go very far. If you have looked at tuition at a career college or a community college, $3,000 does not go very far. If you have looked at the things that people need to do to get to work or find work, it does not go very far at all. So the premise of the bill seems to be that people are not taking jobs because it is better to stay on unemployment than it is to go get a job. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that anybody who thinks that has probably never been on unemployment. The idea here is not that the $3,000 is going to be an incentive for people to go get a job. People are not taking jobs because the economy is not creating the jobs. For every three people looking for work in America today, there is one job. That is the problem that we ought to fix. We ought to extend unemployment benefits for those without a job. We ought to pass the transportation bill so that we put 300,000 Americans to work. We ought to adopt the Ryan proposal from yesterday that would create 100,000 new jobs for first responders to deal with our homeland security problems. That is the way to fix this problem. Not this bill. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me time, and I rise in opposition to this rule. Over the last several years, we have lost 2 million jobs in the country. Over the last several weeks, we have heard that there are new and grave terrorist threats to our trains and a number of individuals are free in the country threatening to blow up buildings and do other acts of terror. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has an excellent idea that addresses each of those two problems. His idea is that we authorize enough money so that we could train and recruit and hire 100,000 first responders to be deployed in our cities and our States and our communities across the country. We would be stronger at home against the terrorist threat, and we would put 100,000 people to work in the process in skilled jobs with good benefits. Now, I think this is an excellent idea. But what is wrong about what the House is doing today is we are not even going to get to debate this idea or discuss it or vote on it. The majority has put forth a plan that they say will help the unemployed. I emphatically disagree that it will, but it is their right to bring that plan forward. It should be our right as the minority to bring our plan forward. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has an excellent plan. If you vote against the previous question, you will give us the chance to debate and vote on the very excellent plan offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question for that reason.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the centenary of Haddon Heights, New Jersey. My family and I are privileged to live in Haddon Heights, a small town located in southern New Jersey just outside Camden and 7 short miles from downtown Philadelphia. While its proximity to one of the largest and most vibrant metropolitan centers in the country makes Haddon Heights a culturally diverse and enriched community, the town is also a world removed from the bustle of the city, reflecting values and a sense of community characteristic of small towns far removed from our urban centers. Haddon Heights was first settled in 1699 when John Hinchman built a one-room brick house. However, the borough was developed primarily as farmland, divided between crops and orchards for nearly 200 years. The borough was named Haddon Heights because of its proximity to Haddonfield and its high elevation. During the late 1890s, the town's first homes, church, rail station, and a general store were constructed, and by 1904, Haddon Heights had become large enough to incorporate as a borough. The town's residents elected Benjamin A. Lippincott as the town's first mayor. Viewed as a resort town because of a direct rail connection to Philadelphia, its proximity to the lake, and the warmth and friendliness of its small town atmosphere, the population of Haddon Heights swelled during the summer months as vacationers escaped the cities. The rail station served as the hub of the town, and a small downtown began to emerge surrounding the railroad that brought the town's visitors. Rail passenger service ended in 1965, but Haddon Heights retains to this day a character reflective of its roots as a rail town at the turn of the 20th century. Haddon Heights has a proud, rich heritage, which we continue to embrace and celebrate as we look to our shared future. I feel privileged to be a part of the Haddon Heights community, and I can think of no better place today, to raise a family or to be a child growing up. So in celebration of the past 100 years, and in anticipation of the many great things to come from our town in the next 100 years, please join me in honoring Haddon Heights, New Jersey, on the celebration of its centenary.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, these are very troubling days in the Congress of the United States of America, because we are engaging virtually every day in the easy part of government. It is really easy to come to this floor and spend more money on things that people like, whether it is defense contracts that put people to work, or highway projects that make the traffic flow more easily, or cleanup of toxic waste dumps or more financial aid for colleges and universities. It is easy to do that, and it is great to go home and take credit for it. It is even easier to stand on the floor of the House and vote to lower people's taxes. There is not a constituent in America that I can think of that does not like to hear us come home and say we just lowered their taxes. What we are engaging in here is an act of economic malpractice against the people of this country. I heard my friend from Nevada talk about his friend holding his newborn baby. Well, I have two children, and I am going to vote against this bill, because I do not want to send them the bill for the money that we are borrowing to pay for our increased spending and tax cut after tax cut after tax cut. For every $100 dollars that this government spends, we borrow $30. We borrow $30 for every $100 we spend around here. We borrow it from the Social Security trust fund that is going to run out of money in the next decade, and we borrow it from future taxpayers of this country. Now, it is very easy to vote for these things today and hand the bill to our children in the future, but it is very wrong. And I hear all this talk about ``job creation.'' We have had tax cuts since 2001. We have lost a net 2.2 million jobs since 2001. I do not think they have worked. I will tell you what will work. There is a tried and true formula in America. The more money the Federal Government borrows, the higher the interest rates eventually go. The higher the interest rates go, the less economic growth you have. The less economic growth you have, the more jobs you kill. The more deficits you create, the more communities you hurt. We have seen this before. It happened in the 1980s and it was a disaster, and we are doing it again. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to listen to a Republican voice in the wilderness from the other body, Senator McCain, who said yesterday, referring to our Speaker, ``The Speaker is correct that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ANDREWS. I can certainly understand why the Speaker does not want this quote characterized.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would then paraphrase what the good Senator says.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this Member of the House believes, and shares this belief with many people in both parties across the country, that it is reckless and irresponsible at a time of war to be borrowing money to pay to reduce anybody's taxes. There used to be a time in this country when we had to sacrifice as a country, that everybody was part of that sacrifice. It is shameful that for the purpose of going home and delivering good news, we are borrowing money from our children. We should oppose this bill and we should support the substitute of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), because it is paid for; and we should stop this economic malpractice against the people of this country.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this budget does not just deepen the fiscal deficit, it deepens the moral deficit of cynicism that Americans feel increasingly towards this government, because this budget is built upon a misrepresentation. It is built upon the misrepresentation that we can have it all and never make a tough choice. It says you can keep raising what you spend, you can continue to reduce taxes, you can continue to borrow massive sums of money, and nothing bad will ever happen. Something very bad is going to happen if this budget should become law. We are going to borrow more money, drive up interest rates, dry up capital for the private sector, and kill jobs in this country for many, many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I think the majority has a point when they put forward a 1-year budget resolution. Maybe there is intuitive wisdom in that, because if they follow this policy next year, they will not be writing the budget resolution, a new President and a new majority will. We welcome and look forward to that day.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) who said that any Member here who does not support the working families who run small businesses should be ashamed of themselves, the gentleman is right. We all should support such individuals, and that is what the law does now. The law says if someone owns a business and OSHA brings a specious or frivolous claim, that they can recover their attorney's fees now. That is the law. What this bill does is go far beyond the law, and it says to OSHA, if you are not sure you are going to win the case, you better not bring it. If you are not certain you are going to win the case, you are going to have to pay the attorney's fees of the person you are suing. So if I were the person running OSHA, Mr. Speaker, and my personnel came to me and said there is a claim we want to file against a company that digs trenches that are sometimes unsafe and there was a collapse of a trench last year and a guy died, I would ask them, Are you sure you are going to win the case? And if they are competent and honest attorneys, their answer would be we are not sure because it may be the defense that the trench was constructed properly, or it may be a defense that the worker acted in a fashion that contributed to the accident, or there may be some other defense. The law today says if OSHA brings a frivolous and unsubstantiated claim and loses, then OSHA must pay the counsel fees of the company that they sue. Now the majority has said that law is insufficient to get the job done because very few claims have been paid out. I wonder if the reason very few claims have been paid out is because the huge majority of claims that OSHA has brought have been justified, have been heard by a court and have been determined not to be substantially unjustified. I would respectfully suggest to the majority that if the majority wishes to make the standard easier for a business that is sued to get over, they should look at amending that statute or perhaps look at the definition of ``substantially unjustified.'' What this says is if OSHA sues and loses, it pays. So the only cases that OSHA is going to bring are the ones that they are certain they are going to win. This is effectively and functionally a repeal of the OSHA statute because if the agency brings a claim that it is not sure that it is going to win and if it loses that claim, it has to pay fees that will eventually dwarf and overwhelm its budget, and it will not pursue the claims at all. The twisted logic of this bill is if OSHA makes a misjudgment and files a case that it loses on a close call, it loses not only the case, but it loses its ability to go after dozens or hundreds of other cases because the resources that it would have devoted to investigating and prosecuting those cases would be otherwise spent. If OSHA brings a frivolous or unjustified case against a small business, it should pay the counsel fees of the small business. That is the law today. This bill goes far beyond that and says to OSHA you can only bring the cases you are sure you are going to win. That will radically cut back on the ability of this agency to protect the American worker. I fear that is what the bill is intended to do, and that is why we ought to oppose it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks. I did want to make one follow-up point about the legal requirement to be appointed. My understanding is that to be a commissioner on the Securities and Exchange Commission, which certainly involves tremendous issues of adjudication, you do not need to have, necessarily, a legal background to do that. I would just ask the gentleman to reconsider that important point, that directing any President to appoint a person only with a legal background here, I think, is a serious mistake that we did not make on the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for his generous compliment and for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the motives of my friend from Georgia who brought this legislation to the floor. I know he does everything he does out of goodness of spirit and intention, and my remarks are not meant to be critical of his intention. I do oppose his bill, however, for three important reasons. The first is the bill is reminiscent, to me, of American history from the 1930s, when President Franklin Roosevelt was unhappy with some of the results he was getting from the U.S. Supreme Court, so he decided to try to change the number of people on the U.S. Supreme Court. The history books called this a ``court-packing'' scheme. I have to wonder if what this legislation is really about is about changing some of the results on this commission by changing the number of commissioners. I have heard the concerns about quorums. I think that is something that is a problem that could be cited in a number of different Federal agencies. I would say to my friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, if you want to change the substance of what the commission is doing, then change the statute. Bring it to this floor and let us have an open and fair debate. But changing the number of commissioners, I think is an inappropriate way to do that. The second concern that I have about the emphasis, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) talked about, on people with legal training serving on this commission, I actually think that the President of either party ought to have the broadest discretion to determine what is a suitable background for service on this commission. I would raise a question as to this point. Since many people who are active in the labor movement do not have a legal background, I only have to wonder if one of the ideas behind this provision is to make it more difficult for a President to appoint a labor leader to this commission, which would be unfortunate. The third reason I oppose this, frankly, goes to the relatively narrow nature of this bill at a time when there are so many other major problems the country is facing. The country is embroiled in a very serious policy problem. I know a lot of tomorrow is going to be devoted to that debate. I am not sure we are going to have enough time for all of the Members to come to this floor and express their concerns about what is happening in the Middle East to our country right now. There are 45 million Americans without health insurance. We had a bill on the floor last week that purported to speak to that. There are a lot of other ideas we could be debating on this floor that we are not. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have seen their unemployment insurance expire in the last few months, and we have yet to see brought to the floor a bill that would give us a chance to debate and vote on the extension of unemployment benefits. I think when there are such immense questions facing the country, to be taking up the time of the House on the very narrow question of whether there should be five members on this commission or three is an unfortunate allocation of time. Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time and for his leadership in pointing out the flaws in these bills that are on the floor today. It is a thankless and sometimes tedious job, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) does it exceedingly well, and we thank him for his hard work. I rise in opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it does result in a structure that the Administrative Procedures Act has set in place that works. And although OSHA is not a perfect agency, it is a functional agency that has done much to protect many, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), just talked about. The Administrative Procedures Act sets up a balance where when this Congress creates a law and delegates to an administrator in the executive branch the responsibility of enforcing that law, the courts give that administrator significant deference in studying what the law means and how it should be enforced. That is a principle that should apply, and I believe does apply, to OSHA. This bill would create an exception to that principle that I believe is nothing more than a fifth wheel. The bill purports to set up two centers of decision-making within the Department of Labor, one is the Secretary of Labor herself, and the other is the commission that oversees OSHA. It falsely and artificially divides responsibility for understanding and interpreting OSHA standards on the one hand and then enforcing them on the other hand. This just does not make any sense to me. When Congress legislates in an area of policy importance, whether it is transportation or health or the environment, we frequently create an executive branch person to oversee the enforcement of that law. We then vest that executive branch person with the responsibility of learning about that substantive area and writing the rules that govern that substantive area. The Administrative Procedures Act requires that the courts give significant deference to the decisions made by that executive branch officer. This works with the EPA, it works in the financial services industry, it works with respect to transportation, and I believe it works in the field of worker safety. This bill upsets that balance by directing the courts to give deference in two areas. One area is the Secretary of Labor when it comes to writing the rules, but the other is to the commission when it comes to interpreting the rules. Putting aside for a minute the confusion over what writing the rules means versus what interpreting the rules means and how the court would have to sort that out, I believe what we will be passing today, should this bill pass, will be a breeder of litigation that would call every standard and every regulation of OSHA into question, very often for the purpose of prolonging the period of time before the regulation is enforced. The Administrative Procedures Act is, frankly, a work of legal genius in this country. It properly balances the scales among the Congress, the executive branch, and the courts. By creating a fourth scale to be balanced by saying that there are two administrative agencies within the Department of Labor that must be taken into account, I believe we create a disruption. This is more than just a theoretical problem. The ultimate result of this bill would be to delay and dilute worker safety standards from being enforced, to delay them because there would be one more litigation hurdle that would have to be jumped over before the law could be enforced, and dilute them because it, frankly, is the nature of things that the longer a process takes, the more compromise there is. Compromise is sometimes a good thing, but when we are compromising an important value like worker safety, it is not a good thing. I would urge Members to oppose this bill because it defers and dilutes worker safety standards that the workers of this country so strongly need. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his leadership in fighting against these bills.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the fifth and sixth grade students and teachers in Camden County, NJ who participated in the Second Annual Battle of the Books. Battle of the Books is a nationwide program designed to foster and encourage a devotion to reading. Through this program, librarians and reading teachers select several books that each participating student is then required to read. Each week students meet to discuss the material they read and, in early spring, a competition is held to test the knowledge that the students have amassed as a result of their voracious reading. The Battle of the Books is a worthwhile program which greatly enhances the educational experiences of all who choose to participate. I ask that my colleagues join me in commending all of the participating students (including my daughter, Jacquelyn) for their devotion to reading, as well as the teachers and advisors for all that they do to educate our nation's youth. Participants were, from Atlantic Avenue School in Haddon Heights, NJ: Jacquelyn Andrews, Ben Huber, Kate Quinn, Michael Wasienko, and Samantha Wentz. From Bell Oaks School in Bellmawr, NJ: Ryan Campanella, Courtney Clark, Valentina Covalenco, Robert O'Donnell, Vidhi Patel and Ryan Carney. From Glenview Avenue School in Haddon Heights, NJ: Jason Jenson, Zachary Andrews, Matthew Capula, Robbie Migliaccio, Christopher McKane, and Nick Sabota. From Kershaw School in Mount Ephraim, NJ: Kristina Marioni, Joe Benigno, Ben Donia, Nicole Fisher, Jessica Lanchang, Nicole West, Chris Fehr, Melissa Jost, Rhea Keith, Amanda Monteleone, Brianna Ingram, and Sarah Myers. From Pine Hill Middle School in Pine Hill, NJ: Shelby Cubbler, Chris Harris, Kori Lok, Emily Oriente, Monica Thompson, and Jackie Springer. From Seventh Avenue School in Haddon Heights, NJ: Beth Packi, Matthew Deeney, Rebbecca Baron, Megan Hall, Marc Delmonico, and Nathaniel Harshaw. From Mary Volz School in Runnemede, NJ: Michael Bieg, Carly Drebit, Sean Fredhoff, Brian Kissam, Andrea Lowe, Rachel McKelvy, Michael Cook, Andrea Farino, Jennifer Koss, Amanda McAnally, Brianna Rodriguez, and Evan Prims. From Woodland School in Barrington, NJ: Jill Costello, Alexa Diedrich, Alyssa Jarmusik, Megan Roney, Amanda Woodward, Tyler Franceschini, Edwin Gross, Donny Lang, Mike Muniz, Erik Tate, and Matt Waite. And, from Yellin School in Stratford, NJ: Amanda Hubler, Jeffrey Abbott, Jesse Debes, Sarah Price, Rachel Overpeck, David Calber, Katie Keen, Maryann Baxler, Joshua Forrest, Katelyn Sullivan, Vincent Carpinelli, and Ryan Cooper. The librarians and reading teachers who served as advisors for the students were Mrs. Nancy Healy, Mrs. Jo Ann Burns, Ms. Nancy Clark, Mrs. Susie Leon, Mrs. Susan Mosebrook, Mrs. Diane Drayer Beler, Mrs. Sue Milon, Mrs. Julie LaRubbio, and Mrs. Debbie Reinholt.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for whom I have the most profound respect, the ranking Democrat member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman's question was not rhetorical. What we have to fear, we should listen to the advice of attorneys general and Governors and insurance commissioners from around the country who say we have to fear this: we have to fear a poorly regulated or unregulated structure that is not properly accountable under fiduciary standards and has no experience in running insurance companies, which is why they oppose the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my coauthor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), for what has now been more than a year of hard work on this effort, a very practical, commonsense solution that would not have been possible without him; and I thank him for his effort. It is important to understand how this proposal works. If a small employer, and we define that as an employer with 100 or fewer employees, chooses, only if he or she chooses, they may enroll their employees in a plan that would operate similarly to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. It would create the largest purchasing pool of small businesses ever in the history of the country. It would achieve the economies of scale that the majority attempts to achieve in the underlying bill. But there are some important differences. The first difference is that we believe our plan would in fact save money for that employer. In my home State, a small business pays about $12,000 or $13,000 a year to insure an employee and his or her family. The average cost under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is slightly over $9,000. We believe a similar price reduction would occur by the option of joining this plan. Secondly, under our plan, for very small employers, those with 25 and under, they would receive a 5 percent premium discount. That is to say, their premium would only be 95 percent of the premium paid by the others in the pool. Thirdly, very small employers with a lot of low-income employees, those who are most likely to be uninsured, are offered additional subsidies that are drawn from the budget resolution passed by the majority. This fits within the majority's budget resolution. So the first important difference is our version, our plan, would add to the rolls of the insured rather than subtracting from it the way the majority's plan would. Second, under our plan, none of the protections that people enjoy, the right to a mammogram, the right to women's health services, the right to mental health services, guaranteed under State laws around the country, none of those rights would be lost or forfeited under our plan. Third, the risks of insolvency, unpaid creditors, uninsured insurers that the majority's plan proposes, would be avoided here, because you would have a large plan under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Government that would be solvent and would be prepared to meet its obligations because it is properly regulated. This is a commonsense idea. We believe in pooling as well. Frankly, I think that the majority has half of a good idea. The idea of permitting small employers to pool their employees to get a better deal from the health insurance marketplace is a very good idea. The problem is that the majority's plan also includes the repeal and forfeiture of protections like mammogram coverage, like diabetic care, like women's health services; and that is both unnecessary and undesirable. Second, the majority's plan does not include any subsidies or special incentives for small business. A lot of small businesses in my State, even if you dropped the price of the coverage from $12,000 to $11,000 or $10,000, could still not afford it. It does not do them any good. Our plan, unlike the majority plan, puts some subsidy into this in the form of premium discounts for very small employers and even deeper discounts for small employers who hire many, many lower-compensated employees. We have said a lot of critical things about the majority's plan because we believe they are right; but we also understand, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to put forward a positive alternative. The work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has done, that I am proud to join in, is such a positive alternative. It would offer real benefits in a meaningful way for the small business community of the country. I would urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself the balance of my time. I agree completely with the chairman that the number one issue on the health care agenda of this country is finding insurance for the 43, 44 million uninsured. I agree with him completely that it is a worthy project for this House to pursue. Long overdue. Usually it does not persuade me when you submit a list of people who are against a bill or for a bill, because I think each one of us has the obligation to make our own judgment about these matters, as each one of us should here. At this point in the Record, by the way, I include the Mercer study to which I referred, the actuarial study to which I referred, and the letter from the Congressional Budget Office to which I referred. [Prepared for: National Small Business United, June 2003] Impact of Association Health Plan Legislation on Premiums and Coverage for Small Employers (By Beth Fritchen, FSA, MAAA; and Karen Bender, FCA, ASA, MAAA, Mercer Risk, Finance & Insurance) executive summary National Small Business United (NSBU) engaged Mercer Risk, Finance & Insurance (Mercer) to analyze the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003'' (H.R. 660 and S. 545). This legislation would encourage the formation of federally certified Association Health Plans (AHPs) by exempting these plans from various state laws that govern health insurance sold to small employers today. Proponents of H.R. 660 and S. 545 argue that federally certified AHPs would expand access to affordable health insurance for small employers and reduce the number of uninsured. Opponents believe the legislation would have the exact opposite effect--that is, it would cause premiums to rise and the number of uninsured to increase. Mercer developed an actuarial model to assess how this legislation would affect premiums for small firms that purchase state-regulated coverage and firms that enroll in AHPs over a four year period as well as the impact on the number of uninsured. The analysis concludes that federal AHP legislation would not alleviate the health insurance cost pressures faced by small employers. Rather, the proposed AHP legislation would have a detrimental impact on small employer premiums, especially for firms with high-cost workers, and would cause a significant number of small employers to drop coverage, thereby increasing the nation's uninsured population. In brief, we found that once federal AHP legislation was fully implemented: Health insurance costs would increase significantly for small businesses in the state-regulated insurance market. Health insurance premiums would increase by 23% for small employers that continued to purchase state-regulated coverage This increase would result from AHPs' ability to attract healthier-than-average firms out of the state-regulated market. AHPs' exemption from mandated benefits would allow them to tailor products attractive to healthier populations. Moreover, exemption from sate limits on premiums and marketing standards would allow AHPs to enroll healthier- than-average groups and encourage firms with high cost workers to switch back to the state-regulated market. As AHPs attract small employers whose perceived health status is good, firms with greater expected health care utilization would remain in the state-regulated market, where they have the protection of mandated benefits and other requirements. The resulting outflow of low-cost groups from the state-regulated market and the remaining concentration of high-cost groups would start an adverse selection spiral that would accelerate premium increases for employers in the state-regulated market. AHP legislation would increase, not decrease, the number of uninsured. The number of uninsured would increase by over 1 million as a result of coverage losses among workers in small firms and their dependents. As premiums for small employers in the sate-regulated market increased, some firms would drop coverage and not switch to an AHP. Coverage declines would also result when groups covered by AHPs drop their coverage when their rates increase because someone in the group gets sick. While some of these groups would switch back to the state-regulated market, others would drop coverage entirely. Federal AHPs would gain a pricing advantage through risk- selection, not greater administrative efficiency. The modeling predicts that after four years premiums for AHPs would average 10% below that of the existing small group market. However, we expect these price reductions to result from favorable risk selection and exclusion of benefits rather than improved purchasing efficiency or lower administrative costs. AHPs could use a variety of techniques to select healthier-than-average firms--techniques available to AHPs because the legislation preempts key provisions of state law designed to prevent risk selection. Specifically, under H.R. 660 and S. 545 AHPs could: charge firms with high-cost workers much higher premiums than permitted under state law; experience rate each association based on the risk of only their members; and offer pared-down products without benefits that would be needed or desired by higher-risk small employers. Together, these strategies would allow AHPs to offer the most attractive rates to healthy groups and avoid the cross-subsidies that state small employer health insurance reforms require. Federal AHPs would insure the healthiest small employers. The modeling estimates that the average morbidity (a measure of whether a firm is ``sick'' or ``healthy'') of firms enrolling in AHPs would be 21% lower than the average morbidity of small employers in the market today. Further, as higher-cost small employers dropped coverage in response to rate increases resulting from the movement of healthy employers out of the state-regulated market, the average morbidity of the uninsured population would increase by 12.3%. AHPs would appeal most to firms with younger workers given the close correlation between age and health status. Small employers would face higher premiums overall. Average small employer premiums (considering both cost increases for the state-regulated market and premium reductions for AHPs) would increase by 6%. Average premiums would increase because the size of the average premium increase for the population remaining in the state-regulated market (23%) would outweigh the smaller average premium decrease for those covered by AHPs (10%). These results indicate that AHP legislation is not a solution to rising health care costs for small employers. While some firms obtaining coverage through AHPs may see lower premiums, firms with higher-cost employees would see their premiums increase. Overall, small employers would pay higher premiums and the uninsured population would increase if this legislation were enacted.